Nov 30 2005 12:52 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2005 12:55 PM
He should have had a battery named after him.
Master Index of Archived Threads
Hall of Fame Ballot
| Edgy DC Nov 29 2005 12:49 AM |
|
Four Mets among the first timers. Enjoy it. Hershiser and maybe Gooden will see a second year. But I doubt that latter guy.
|
| duan Nov 29 2005 06:12 AM |
|
I'd add Trammell to the yays.
|
| Edgy DC Nov 29 2005 07:58 AM |
|
I might at that. Stupid Ripken.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Nov 29 2005 09:08 AM |
|
I'd vote for Bruce Sutter. And maybe that would be it.
|
| Frayed Knot Nov 29 2005 09:42 AM |
|
A ballot weak with newbies is often good news for long-time 'just missing' types (or so the theory goes).
|
| sharpie Nov 29 2005 09:43 AM |
|
Didn't Andre Dawson come awfully close last year?
|
| Edgy DC Nov 29 2005 11:03 AM |
|
The publicity around the ballot doesn't seem to have officially begun, but I expect that the story of this year's ballot will be that Pete Rose's eligibility with the BBWAA has expired.
|
| HahnSolo Nov 29 2005 11:05 AM |
|
I'd give yays to Goose, Rice, Sutter and Trammell.
|
| Willets Point Nov 29 2005 11:11 AM |
|
|
You Trammel voters are going to get brownie points with Ms. Tiger.
Except that he's never been eligible to start with. What a conundrum.
|
| Vic Sage Nov 29 2005 11:14 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2005 06:06 PM |
|
[u:7a975d5067]My revised rankings[/u:7a975d5067]
|
| sharpie Nov 29 2005 11:34 AM |
|
Actually, DiSarcina made an All-Star team so he gets to be on the Goodbye All-Star Team.
|
| duan Nov 29 2005 11:51 AM |
|
I should also point out that I wouldn't go with Sutter at all
|
| Edgy DC Nov 29 2005 12:00 PM |
|
That's because you never saw a three-inning save of a one-run game.
|
| duan Nov 29 2005 12:12 PM |
|
pitched for 12 seasons ; 4 of those with above average era.
|
| willpie Nov 29 2005 12:49 PM Re: Hall of Fame Ballot |
|
Yeas:
|
| Edgy DC Nov 29 2005 12:58 PM |
|
|
I think we're a long way off from sorting out and quantifying the career value of relief pitchers. I also think we have to go a ways towards differentiating the role value of earlier generations of relievers--- like Wilhelm and Face --- from the generation of Fingers, Gossage, and Sutter, and from their heirs in the eighties and nineties. It's as complex as sorting out the difference between pitchers of the pre-1900 pitchers who started most of their team's games from those who would follow and pitch in small rotations, from those again who would follow and pitch in larger rotations.
|
| Nymr83 Nov 29 2005 01:08 PM |
|
Blyleven definetaly.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Nov 29 2005 01:14 PM |
|
I've thought about it some more, and if I did have a ballot, I'd only check one name: Sutter.
|
| HappyRecap Nov 29 2005 01:17 PM hey Edgy, I agree |
|
I don't remember Sutter too much probably since the only chance to see him pitch would be either Monday Night Baseball when they had it or when his team came to town. But from all reports, he was dominant.
|
| Edgy DC Nov 29 2005 01:19 PM |
|
I think the ship has long since sailed on the notion that we're literally honoring fame. Bobby Richardson has been retired for 39 years and he's still more famous than many guys in the hall like Bid McPhee or Judy Johnson.
|
| Frayed Knot Nov 29 2005 01:21 PM |
|
Blyleven & Sutter represent two opposite sides of an argument: the guy who was very good for a long period vs one who was dominant but had a much shorter prime.
|
| HappyRecap Nov 29 2005 01:27 PM Yancy, one more to purge from the HOF |
|
Bill Mazeroski. Nice long career but no way a HOFer.
|
| duan Nov 29 2005 01:28 PM |
|
|
Sure; I'm basically with you on that. HOWEVER there was a very interesting article on this in relation to the 2005 class Relievers Despite having jobs no more difficult than those of NFL placekickers, late-model one-inning closers are exalted by the media. But their fireman predecessors, who often pitched two or three frames at a clip, get little love from the Hall of Fame voters. That contradiction is a direct response to a usage pattern geared towards limiting the team's best reliever to situations where he can receive a statistical cookie, a save, rather than in tie games, when the outcome may be on the line but the save rule doesn't apply. Thus an 80-inning/40-save closer is held in higher esteem that a 110-inning/25-save stopper. We shouldn't be fooled by high save totals; it's the runs that matter, and due to the limited innings they throw, the Davenport numbers tell us that it's nearly impossible for the best late-model relievers to be more valuable than the best everyday players or starting pitchers. Annual WARP totals above 10.0 are common for elite players at their peaks, but the best closers top 8.0 only in a rare Mariano Rivera/Eric Gagne-caliber year. To address this problem while still finding room to reward the bullpen's best, last year I devised a solution to address the relievers on the Hall ballot based on the concept of leverage.Research by Tangotiger using play-by-play data and a Win Expectancy Matrix has shown that good relievers have a quantifiably greater effect on the outcome of a ballgame than starters. Because of their timing late in close games, the results of the plate appearances against them are magnified by some factor, which is called the Leverage Index. A starting pitcher will have a Leverage Index very near 1.0, but an ace reliever might have one approaching 2.0, meaning that the batters he faced were twice as important to the outcome of a ballgame. We don't have uniform play-by-play data to calculate Leverage Indexes for each reliever on the ballot and in the Hall, but we have more or less complete LIs for three of the ballot's top relievers, ranging from 1.6 to 1.9. In light of what we know and don't know about LIs, my suggestion was to examine the conclusions we came up with if we set a JAWS standard for relievers that's 70 percent that of starters--the equivalent of a 1.43 LI, by which we could theoretically multiply a player's contributions to produce a level of equivalence. We'll call this the Point Seven Solution. PRAA PRAR WARP PEAK JAWS Gossage 236 781 84.4 35.0 59.7 Smith 259 734 80.0 32.6 56.3 Montgomery 183 513 57.4 34.3 45.9 Sutter 175 521 57.0 32.1 44.6 AVG HOF P 205 964 95.1 43.6 69.4 RP 70% 144 675 66.6 30.5 48.5 Bruce Sutter holds a historic spot in the evolution of the reliever, and an even more important one in the evolution of pitching in general. Sutter came up with the Cubs in 1976, and by the next season he was lights out, pitching 107 innings with a 1.34 ERA and 129 strikeouts while posting 31 saves. Credit for his success was due largely to mastery of the split-fingered fastball, a pitch unfamiliar to big-league hitters. Sutter didn't invent the splitter, but was the first successful practitioner of it. The innovations around Sutter didn't stop there. Prompted by his ace reliever's tendency to wear down as the season went on, in 1979 Cubs manager Herman Franks decided to limit Sutter's usage mainly to close games when his team was ahead--in other words, save situations. Sutter tied the National League record with 37 and won the Cy Young, thanks to a 2.22 ERA/101-inning season. After five stellar seasons in Chicago, he was traded to the Cardinals, where he posted three strong years as well as his first subpar one. He was an instrumental piece of the 1982 World Champions, saving 36 games in another 100-inning season and notching a win and two saves in the World Series. In 1984 he set a career high of 122 2/3 innings and an NL record with 45 saves while posting a 1.54 ERA. Coincidentally or not, that was his last effective season. Lured by Ted Turner's cable riches, he left for the Braves via free agency after 1984. But in Atlanta his shoulder broke down, and he was never the same pitcher again. He pitched 152 innings of 4.55 ERA ball for Ted's $10 million, and was done at 35. The traditional case for Sutter is that in addition to being attached to two notable innovations, he was one of the few relievers to win a Cy Young, a six-time All-Star who threw a lot more innings than today's closers. Excluding the strike year of 1981, he averaged 104 frames a year from 1977-1984. But despite three years in the vicinity of 8.0 WARP, the Davenport numbers leave him below our Point Seven standard. That's surprising given his dominance of NL hitters, but it aptly illustrates the limited impact of even a 100-inning-a-year role and the difficulty of maintaining that level. Unless he's given extra credit for the pitch he didn't invent, Sutter's claim on the Hall of Fame isn't all that strong. No vote for him here. After breaking in as a Cincinnati Red, Jeff Montgomery spent 12 years as an institution in Kansas City, inheriting the closer role once held by the lamentably late and undeniably great Dan Quisenberry. In 1989, his second year as a Royal, Montgomery posted a microscopic 1.37 ERA in 92 innings. He was dominant over the 1989-93 span, averaging 89 innings a year with an ERA+ of 184 while striking out 8.0 batters per nine innings. As his fastball lost its zip, he became less effective, but still held the closer role for another six years, the last one marred due to a hip injury. Ultimately, his JAWS numbers are about the same as Sutter's but without the innovation. We'll be seeing a lot more of his 300-save ilk in a few years, so it's best not to marry the first one that comes along. Physically intimidating Lee Smith stepped into the large shoes vacated by Sutter in Chicago and did a very credible job in six years as their 100-inning per year closer. From 1983-1987, he finished in the top five in saves every season, leading the league once. Traded to Boston after 1987, he continued to post high-quality seasons, though his workload and save totals dipped a bit. Traded again to the Cardinals, he flourished, topping Sutter's NL save record and recording 160 saves in parts of four seasons--taking over the all-time lead in that category--before packing his bags again. Through five more stops, the innings began to take a toll on his body, and his managers limited his usage to about 50 frames a year, one inning at a time, to keep him effective. He spent his last two seasons in a setup role, with diminishing returns, finally hanging it up in 1998. From a traditional standpoint, Smith's case starts with his status as the all-time saves leader, his seven All-Star selections, and an amazing string of consistency which followed him to virtually every stop on his 18-year ride. Until his final 22-inning season, his ERA+ was always better than league-average--32 percent better for his career. On the down side, his teams never went farther than an LCS, and he got bombed in his brief postseason appearances, blowing two ballgames in best-of-fives. His Davenport numbers are above the Point Seven standard for relievers, particularly due to his career length, and he's well above the Hall average for PRAA without any adjustment for his low inning totals, an impressive feat. Even if we raised the relievers' standard to 80 percent, he'd still be above it. A vote under this system is quite reasonable. If we're talking about standard-setting relievers, Rich "Goose" Gossage carried the mantle for a decade, pitched in the majors for another decade, and ten years later is still held up as a yardstick for dominant relievers. From 1975-1985, excepting a year-long failed experiment as a starter, Gossage blew hitters in both leagues away, helped his teams to three pennants, made nine All-Star squads and kept his ERA well under 3.00 every single year. He came up with the White Sox, emerging as a force in 1975 when he threw 141.2 innings with a 1.84 ERA , 130 strikeouts and a league-leading 26 saves. After a 9-17, 3.94 ERA season as a starter, the Sox traded him to Pittsburgh, where he had an even better year with a 1.62 ERA. That prompted Yankee owner George Steinbrenner to throw big bucks at him--six years, $2.75 million--despite the fact Steinbrenner already employed the reigning Cy Young winner, Sparky Lyle. But with his 100-mph heat, Gossage usurped Lyle's role as the Yankee stopper. He was brilliant in his six pinstriped seasons, posting a 2.10 ERA (a 183 ERA+), saving 25 games per year, striking out about a batter per inning, and averaging 86 innings annually despite a Bronx Zoo-brawl injury in '79 and the strike in '81. Gossage left for San Diego via free agency after 1983, and the move paid dividends with an '84 World Series berth. He was the go-to man in the Padre pen until '87, but upon a trade to the Cubs after that season, began the familiar trudge of the past-prime reliever, not quite settling in a setup role, making five more stops (including a cameo with the Yanks) and spending 1990 in Japan. He topped 50 innings only once in that stretch, mostly due to injuries, but he held his own when he did pitch. Gossage's case as a Hall of Famer is a reasonable one on the traditional merits; that decade of dominance resonating in the public mind thanks in part to a lot of postseason exposure (19 games, 31.1 innings, 2.87 ERA). Based on the number of innings thrown and his better-than-average ERA, a solid case can be made for him as the second-best reliever ever behind Wilhelm. His Davenport numbers are just as strong. Gossage's two best years are an off-the-charts 10 WARP; by peak, career, and JAWS numbers he's better than many starters in the Hall, and his PRAA is above the Hall average. Furthermore, he compares favorably with the two enshrined "pure" relievers, Wilhelm and Fingers, with the highest peak among them by a healthy margin: PRAA PRAR WARP PEAK JAWS Wilhelm 259 900 92.6 29.5 61.1 Gossage 236 781 84.4 35.0 59.7 Fingers 137 688 75.1 31.1 53.1 Gossage would be above our standards bar even if we raised it to 85 percent. He's got the best case of any reliever on this ballot and deserves a plaque in Cooperstown. With Bert Blyleven, Lee Smith and Rich Gossage joining Wade Boggs, Ryne Sandberg, and Alan Trammell, the JAWS method has flagged six players on the 2005 Hall of Fame ballot as meeting the standards of the enshrined. Boggs is a lock to gain election this year, and Sandberg might surge over the top, but it's likely that the worthy pitchers will be shut out. We'll know in the first week of January whether the BBWAA voters can distinguish the Hall's contenders from its pretenders.
|
| Edgy DC Nov 29 2005 01:33 PM |
|
A lot of terms (JAWS, for instance) that I'm unfamiliar with, and can't teach myself right now. So I won't retort. But thanks.
|
| MFS62 Nov 29 2005 03:49 PM |
|
|
There's a vote going on at the ESPN website. They are apparently unencumbered by the real ballot, because the leading vote getter (over 70%) is Pete Rose. And Don Mattingly is second. Back to our thread, I'd toss a coin on Jim Rice (I can be convinced both ways) and vote for Doc Gooden, just to keep his ship afloat. His "dominance at his position" was Koufax-esque in terms of time. But I guess more voter sympathy goes to the natural (arthritis) career ending infermity than a self imposed one (substance abuse). And, Edgy, as for the "Fame" arguement, I still consider it. One way of voting I've heard about is "When you think of an era in baseball, is this player one of the first five (pick your number) players who you think of?" I look it as "would I have made a special trip out to the ballpark and paid money to see him play?" In that regard, I would have voted for Dick Allen and not for Al Kaline, who was as dull as dishwater. Later
|
| Edgy DC Nov 29 2005 03:55 PM |
|
Well, such a Hall of Fame would have Bucky Dent over Barry Larkin and Deion Sanders over Tony Gwynn. I don't really think a dull personality or a relative paucity of publicity were ever meant to be disqualifier.
|
| seawolf17 Nov 29 2005 04:02 PM |
|
HELL YES:
|
| rpackrat Nov 29 2005 04:36 PM |
|
My ballot:
|
| sharpie Nov 29 2005 04:46 PM |
|
My ballot:
|
| TheOldMole Nov 29 2005 07:59 PM |
|
Sutter, Rice, Trammell.
|
| MFS62 Nov 29 2005 08:19 PM |
|
|
Of course not. Fame is my personal tie breaker. It is not the only way I judge whether a player should be in the Hall of Fame. After all, it IS the Hall of Fame, not just the Hall of Statistics and IMO a player must be a significant part of the history of the game in the era in which he played. Numbers are a great part of it. But, as you know, there are other official criteria, such as "character". But fame is my unofficial one if I'm still undecided. And in the case of Kaline, other than being the youngest player to lead his league in batting, and then leading his league in doubles one year, he never led his league in any other statistical category. He was to batters what Don Sutton was to pitchers. You'd name the best right fielders in baseball when he played and you came up with Aaron, Clemente, Frank Robinson. Then, after a long pause, it would be "oh, and Kaline, too". And that was when he was still active. To me, that kind of player, an afterthought, is not a Hall of Famer. Don't get me wrong, he was a pretty darn good player. But not a Hall of Famer in my mind. What are your thoughts about Rose leading the voting on ESPN? Later
|
| Edgy DC Nov 29 2005 08:24 PM |
|
Little matters less than internet polling.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Nov 29 2005 08:24 PM |
|
Kaline was mostly before my time, and I don't have a strong opinion about him. But if he was, as you say, the Don Sutton of hitters, then I'd agree that he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.
|
| Edgy DC Nov 29 2005 08:35 PM |
|
I don't know why this argument is centered around Kaline. His credentials seem almost beyond reproach.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Nov 30 2005 08:36 AM |
|
I'm not good at making HOF arguments but for fun, why don't those of you not voting for Albert Belle (which is all of you) take up the case?
|
| HahnSolo Nov 30 2005 09:28 AM |
|
Belle was a little too over-agressive in the home security department around Halloween time for my tastes.
|
| seawolf17 Nov 30 2005 09:31 AM |
|
I think the knock on Belle is that he ate puppy dogs for breakfast. He just wasn't a nice guy, and when a guy is statistically on the borderline for his career, it's those types of things that sway you. I hated Belle; when I was living in Rochester, he was a total dick when the O's came up to play their annual exhibition, and that really stuck with me. You throw in the other incidents (like throwing a ball at a journalist and mysteriously changing your name from Joey to Albert) and it sticks in your craw, and you don't want to recognize the good things, because he didn't really do enough on the field to transcend that.
|
| Edgy DC Nov 30 2005 10:02 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2005 12:37 PM |
|
I think name-changing is keeping Nillson out of the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, though it couldn't kill the McGuinn candicacy.
|
| Valadius Nov 30 2005 11:45 AM |
|
My ballot:
|
| seawolf17 Nov 30 2005 12:28 PM |
|
Crap. I forgot Jack Morris. He goes on the maybe list.
|
| rpackrat Nov 30 2005 12:41 PM |
|
JD, you'rte right about Belle. I simply overlooked him.
|
| seawolf17 Nov 30 2005 12:50 PM |
|
But Tommy John has a surgery named after him. Ain't no Bert Blyleven surgery.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Nov 30 2005 12:52 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 30 2005 12:55 PM |
|
He should have had a battery named after him.
|
| metirish Nov 30 2005 12:53 PM |
|
It could be said Byleven helped launch Chris "Boomer" Berman at ESPN...for that reason alone he should be kept out.......
|
| Valadius Nov 30 2005 01:57 PM |
|
Eligible for the ballot next year:
|
| duan Nov 30 2005 02:01 PM |
|
explanation of jaws and more
|
| Yancy Street Gang Nov 30 2005 02:03 PM |
|
From next year's ballot I'd vote for Gwynn and Ripken. I'd have to think about McGwire.
|
| Valadius Nov 30 2005 02:14 PM |
|
I'd vote for the following of next year's freshman class:
|
| Edgy DC Nov 30 2005 02:17 PM |
|
I don't think that not voting for Canseco is shutting out an entire era.
|
| Willets Point Nov 30 2005 02:21 PM |
|
Canseco seems to be the most sensible member of the Surreal Life cast.
|
| ScarletKnight41 Nov 30 2005 02:23 PM |
|
|
I'm laughing too hard to come up with a suitable quip. But the standards for that are pretty low.
|
| Elster88 Nov 30 2005 03:12 PM |
|
Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? ;-)
|
| Willets Point Nov 30 2005 03:15 PM |
||
|
Well I meant it as a funny comment but sadly it's also true.
|
| sharpie Nov 30 2005 03:15 PM |
|
Next year's class: Gwynn and Ripken. Prolly McGwire.
|
| Nymr83 Nov 30 2005 03:39 PM |
|
Gwynn and Ripken. pass on McGwire the 1st time around i still want to think about him. no way to Harold Baines imo.
|
| MFS62 Nov 30 2005 06:46 PM |
|
Nice work, Duan, but I would like to ask a question about your use of VORP as a baseline. You say that this (including your adjustments)makes comparing players across eras easy. But do your formulae account for the fact that in past eras (before expansion) the quality of even the average replacement player was much higher than replacement players on the diluted rosters of post expansion years?
|
| Valadius Nov 30 2005 06:52 PM |
|
Why is everyone rethinking whether McGwire deserves to get in 5 years after he retired? The consensus 4 years ago was that Gwynn, McGwire, and Ripken were all shoo-ins. Has the steroid controversy really affected his chances that much?
|
| Yancy Street Gang Nov 30 2005 07:05 PM |
|
|
Of course. Fairly or not, it's had a huge effect on his chances.
|
| Nymr83 Nov 30 2005 07:48 PM |
|
he led the league in OPS+ on 4 seperate occasions, you cant keep him out on the stats...i guess it really is the steroids that have soured me on him.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Dec 13 2005 01:50 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 13 2005 02:06 PM |
|
It's Bert Blyleven Awareness Week at this site. Rob Neyer checks in:
|
| Frayed Knot Dec 13 2005 02:01 PM |
|
Dickshot, your link is busted.
|
| Vic Sage Dec 14 2005 10:03 AM |
|
i agree that Belle is worth consideration, despite his personality issues, but he's not a more impressive candidate, IMO, than Jim Rice, and certainly not the all-around player that was Andre Dawson. I'd have to put him squarely behind those fellas.
|
| seawolf17 Dec 27 2005 04:25 PM |
|
|
Another case for [url=http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=2268868]Jim Rice[/url].
|
| MFS62 Jan 02 2006 03:43 PM |
|
Rice and Gossage will make it. I'd also vote for Blyleven.
|
| Nymr83 Jan 02 2006 04:27 PM |
|
SeaWolf- although i do believe that Rice belongs in the HOF, you have to be careful with arguments like that one because not every player's career starts and ends at the same time and it is entirely possible that if you pick a dozen other outfielders whose careers partially overlapped into that period you could find a better 12 year span for each of them...i'm not saying it would happen in this case but its the reason i dont like those arguments...it like that book that tries to build a team for each decade, it doesnt tell me much because a guy could have been dominant from 1975-1985 and he'd be on neither the 70's team nor the 80's team.
|
| Edgy DC Jan 02 2006 04:42 PM |
|
Jim Rice, for instance.
|
| Vic Sage Jan 02 2006 04:50 PM |
|
i agree that saying "yada yada" was the best pitcher of the 80s (jack morris?) is an arbitrary and misleading argument.
|
| Nymr83 Jan 02 2006 05:25 PM |
|
|
that would certainly be a good argument, the entire 12 year span isn't imo because ther could be a ton of guys with partially overlapping better careers
|
| Edgy DC Jan 02 2006 05:41 PM |
|
The problems with the black ink argument is that (1) some of the categories are less important and (2) some are overlapping. If you led the league in homers and doubles in one year, well, then, you likely led the league in slugging as well, and, if Tim Raines is in front of you, you likely led in RBI also.
|
| MFS62 Jan 05 2006 01:52 PM |
|
I'm hoping there is some way the MLB Hall can recognize the lifetime contribution to the game made by Max Patkin, the "Baseball Clown".
|
| Edgy DC Jan 09 2006 04:43 PM |
|
Last day to get in your selections. To my previous selections of Bert Blyleven, Rich Gossage, and Bruce Sutter, I'd like to add Alan Trammell.
|
| seawolf17 Jan 09 2006 04:49 PM |
|
Rice, Sutter, Morris, Murphy, Dawson, and Goose.
|
| Bret Sabermetric Jan 09 2006 05:45 PM |
|
Here's a vote for the ever-popular "No One."
|
| Vic Sage Jan 09 2006 05:50 PM |
|
Gossage
|
| Iubitul Jan 09 2006 07:27 PM |
|
I've always believed that if you have to ask if a player should be in the hall of fame, then the answer should be no. After thinking long and hard, I would vote for no one on this ballot.
|
| TheOldMole Jan 09 2006 07:30 PM |
|
|
Or Al Schact.
|
| MFS62 Jan 10 2006 07:49 AM |
|
|
Then I'll bet you're waiting breathlessly for next year's ballot when Bobby Bonilla, Derek Bell, and Darryl Hamilton will be on it. And, yes, Mole, Al Schact too. I forgot about him. IIRC Al performed mainly in major league parks while Max spent most of his career making minor league crowds laugh. Later
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 10 2006 02:03 PM |
|
Sutter Sails Solo!!!!
|
| sharpie Jan 10 2006 02:06 PM |
|
Rice and Gossage real close but no cigars.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Jan 10 2006 02:08 PM |
|
|
Cool. That matches my ballot! Hopefully the regular season and postseason will also march to my orders this year.
|
| metirish Jan 10 2006 02:10 PM |
|
A big congrats to Sutter.
|
| seawolf17 Jan 10 2006 02:13 PM |
|
Great for Sutter. Loved him as a kid.
|
| sharpie Jan 10 2006 02:13 PM |
|
He got in with 76.5 percent of the vote, if he had gotten a few less then nobody woulda gone in.
|
| Elster88 Jan 10 2006 02:25 PM |
|
|
Has that ever happened?
|
| Yancy Street Gang Jan 10 2006 02:26 PM |
|
It last happened in 1996. But in the past, any time the BBWAA didn't elect anybody, the Veterans Committe did.
|
| MFS62 Jan 10 2006 02:29 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 10 2006 02:34 PM |
|
A closer of the current eligibles breaks through the glass 75% ceiling.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Jan 10 2006 02:34 PM |
|
Is this one of the years that the Veterans Committee meets? Or will Sutter really be a solo act?
|
| Edgy DC Jan 10 2006 02:47 PM |
|
I support Sutter, so contratuations. But electing him and not Gossage strikes me with a big Huh?
|
| sharpie Jan 10 2006 02:48 PM |
|
In X-Met voting:
|
| MFS62 Jan 10 2006 02:51 PM |
|
|
How early? He didn't even bat cleanup on his college team. (Neither did teammate Raffy Palmiero.) Later
|
| Elster88 Jan 10 2006 02:54 PM |
||
|
Before hitting 45+ home runs a year became the norm for the league leader.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Jan 10 2006 02:55 PM |
|
I can understand a vote for Hershiser. Very dominant over a short period, like Koufax. Big game pitcher. I wouldn't have voted for him, but I don't think casting a vote for him is as nutty as for some others who probably got votes.
|
| MFS62 Jan 10 2006 03:04 PM |
|||
|
So, you're not going to ask who the cleanup hitter was on that college team? He made the majors, too. Or do you know the answer to this classic trivia question? Later
|
| Yancy Street Gang Jan 10 2006 03:06 PM |
|
I don't know that one.
|
| G-Fafif Jan 10 2006 03:06 PM |
|
Way to go, Sutter.
|
| Nymr83 Jan 10 2006 03:07 PM |
|
congrats to Sutter but i still think Blyleven and to a lesser extent Rice are getting the shaft and have been for years.
|
| MFS62 Jan 10 2006 03:12 PM |
|
|
They played at either Southern Miss or Misisisippi State. Later
|
| sharpie Jan 10 2006 03:16 PM |
|
Mississippi State. I looked up and saw that Bobby Thigpen seems to have been the only other contemporaneous teammate. I guess he batted cleanup.
|
| seawolf17 Jan 10 2006 03:20 PM |
|
Thigpen is the closest I could get also, but that just doesn't seem right.
|
| MFS62 Jan 10 2006 03:29 PM |
|
Yep, Thigpen batted cleanup on that team. He was your typical "best arm on the squad" and an all-around athlete, playing in the field when he wasn't pitching. He was converted to pitching full time when he became a pro. If he had played in the NL and allowed to bat, who knows how good he would have been? Or if they would have converted him back to a position player.
|
| Willets Point Jan 10 2006 03:40 PM |
|
Thigpen's name always reminds me of this guy:
|
| sharpie Jan 10 2006 04:56 PM |
|
|
No Vet Committee but a Negro League Committee will be convening.
|
| Edgy DC Jan 10 2006 05:04 PM |
|
Bad news for Thigpen, good news for Franklin.
|
| HahnSolo Jan 10 2006 05:14 PM |
|
But no hope for Joe Shlabotnick (sp?).
|
| Vic Sage Jan 10 2006 05:22 PM |
|
sutter over gossage seems dubious to me, despite goose's MFY taint.
|
| mlbaseballtalk Jan 10 2006 05:30 PM |
|
How Goose isn't in yet is a disgrace
|
| mlbaseballtalk Jan 10 2006 05:34 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 10 2006 05:36 PM |
||
|
During the lockout of 1989 an SI writer compared him to Ted Williams though that was more due to his swing looking very natural like. The part of the piece was intended as a "What if this is the deathneil for baseball" look into the future and the father telling a son about one of the great careers cut short because of players and owners greed
|
| Edgy DC Jan 10 2006 05:35 PM |
|
Well, the good news for Goose is that his total went up, and the voters are going to hear for a year arguments that it made no sense to send Sutter without Goose. Goose is in like Early Wynn. You can book it.
|
| smg58 Jan 11 2006 01:10 AM |
|
I think Rice will make it too, and I hope Blyleven does as well. As for the first-timers next year, Gwynn has 3000 hits going for him and Ripken is easy. McGwire... it's not clear that anybody tainted by the steroids issue would have put up Hall-worthy numbers regardless, other than Bonds. I think the smoke needs to settle for McGwire's performance to get a fair hearing, and I'd refrain from selecting him until that happens. It will be interesting to see how the voters feel.
|
| Nymr83 Jan 11 2006 04:30 AM |
|
the career numbers of any hitter who played after the the '94 strike are in serious doubt. Ripken and Gwynn aren't a problem because they played most of their careers before that time and didn't do anything significant (in terms of statistical production, not milestones) afterwards. Bonds was a hall of famer even if his post-strike years had matched his earlier ones. The problem is that there are going to be a TON of guys with very impressive stats (and questions about steroid use) and you can't just let them all in (i hope.)
|
| Edgy DC Jan 11 2006 07:51 AM |
|
I thnk you can draw whatever conclusions you want from his refusal to answer questions thrown at him by Congress. Can't you?
|
| Willets Point Jan 11 2006 12:29 PM |
|
|
This seems to be an over-simplified evaluation of McGwire. There's a vast difference between him and Maris. For starters McGwire hit 583 homeruns for his career. He led the league in homeruns four times in his career, plus the year he was traded he had more homeruns than anyone else in MLB. He hit thirty or more home runs in ten different seasons. He was the first player ever to hit 50 or more home runs in three consecutive seasons and then added a fourth. Also the first player to hit 60 homeruns in consecutive seasons. He helped the A's to three pennants and one World Championship. He was a 12-time All-Star. His similarity scores aren't too shabby including HOF'ers Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey. I think the stats make a good case that he was not a one-year phenenemom and would be worthy of HOF consideration. The issue of steroids is important but if ends up excluding McGwire then he'll have plenty of company.
|
| sharpie Jan 11 2006 12:33 PM |
|
What Willets said.
|
| ScarletKnight41 Jan 11 2006 12:36 PM |
|
Does McGwire hold the Rookie Record for home runs at 49?
|
| Yancy Street Gang Jan 11 2006 12:37 PM |
|
Really? I don't remember that, but good for him for knowing what's really important.
|
| Edgy DC Jan 11 2006 12:37 PM |
|
|
Unless you're hung up on the steroids issue (or even the andro issue) which is a legitimate position.
|
| ScarletKnight41 Jan 11 2006 12:40 PM |
|
|
It's in a biography about him put out by Scholastic several years ago. We actually got McGwire to sign that before a game in 2001. On Edit - I just checked that book, which was published in 1999. It says that McGwire set the rookie home run record in 1987, surpassing the previous record of 38 home runs by a rookie. And it confirms that he left the team before the final game of the season in order to be present for his son Matthew's birth.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Jan 11 2006 01:14 PM |
|
|
From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
|
| MFS62 Jan 11 2006 01:23 PM |
|
Tem writers wrote in the name of Pete Rose on their ballot.
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 11 2006 01:34 PM |
|
Well of course the ineligible list was concocted for the sole purpose of making sure there was no possiblity that Rose would get in; it was akin to a prison being built for just one man.
|
| Vic Sage Jan 11 2006 01:41 PM |
|
I disagree with that column. To the extent a member of the BBWAA is a columnist, and not just a beat writer providing coverage, he/she is being paid to write OPINIONS. That such writers, who DO see more games than anybody else in any position to vote for the HOF, should be suddenly disqualified from expressing their opinion seems perverse.
|
| Edgy DC Jan 11 2006 01:42 PM |
|
Were writers allowed to vote on the White Sox bannees?
|
| mlbaseballtalk Jan 11 2006 06:03 PM |
|
|
Yes they were Because if they are holding the "Sutter before Gossage" rule I don't know I WAS JUST SAYING
|
| metirish Jan 11 2006 08:19 PM |
|
|
Gossage is pissed ...
|
| Edgy DC Jan 11 2006 09:42 PM |
|
Let's get him here for a chat while he's angry.
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 11 2006 10:48 PM |
|
"If Jim Rice had played in the Metrodome, he would have torn the place down, and that's nothing against Kirby Puckett, that's just the way it is," Gossage said.
|
| Edgy DC Jan 11 2006 10:53 PM |
|
I think he was pissed about his own slight, realized he was coming across bitter, and so started taking up other guys' cases to lend some belated nobility to his cause.
|
| Willets Point Jan 11 2006 11:17 PM |
|
In my day we had to walk four miles to school ... uphill ... both ways ... in two feet of snow ... fighting off bears with our notebooks .... and we liked it!
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 11 2006 11:30 PM |
|
This isn't a new or fresh rant from Gossage (who I would have put in before Sutter btw). He's been doing this for years now and will repeat the above act at any time of the year.
|
| Edgy DC Jan 12 2006 12:23 AM |
|
Dale Petroskey announced he'll go in with a Cards insignia on his hat. No, I don't think that means he's "going in as a Cardinal," but I really think of his real Hall of Fame work being his Cubbie work.
|
| 86-Dreamer Jan 12 2006 09:27 AM |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sutter had a 10 year peak from 1976-1985 where he was used exclusively as a closer. Gossage also had a 10 season peak from 1975-1985 (excepting 1976 when he started) so it is quite simple to compare their peak value over the same time frame. For comparison sake, I have also included Mariano Rivera's career totals to date in 10+ seasons
Now if you think saves are all that matters, I guess you could make a silly argument that Goose is third best of this group, but I think these numbers show pretty clearly that he is better than Sutter and in my opinion the best of this bunch.
|
| seawolf17 Jan 13 2006 09:29 AM |
|
I'm going to respond to the "voting for Jefferies" issue in this thread, rather than the Brogna thread.
|
| Edgy DC Jan 13 2006 09:32 AM |
|
Yeah, the stupid thread police were sleeping on the job letting Irish post that sucka over there.
|
| metirish Jan 13 2006 09:33 AM |
|
From reading the Klap article he seems to be somehow outraged that anyone would vote for Jeffries yet Gossage was not elected, one has nothing to do with the other though.
|
| Edgy DC Jan 13 2006 09:39 AM |
|
Well, I guess it coud be argued that there are guys out there who used their tenth and final vote for Jefferies (or someone like him), thereby screwing Gossage by leaving no room on their ballots for him.
|
| Elster88 Jan 13 2006 09:44 AM |
|
So you are required to use all ten of your votes?
|
| HahnSolo Jan 13 2006 09:45 AM |
|
It seems like Klapisch's other point is that if the voting were made public, fewer writers would make these wink, wink selections. Which may be a good point. I don't think the guys who voted for Walt Weiss would really want to have to defend that position.
|
| Elster88 Jan 13 2006 09:46 AM |
|
And since they are writers, defending their votes shouldn't be so difficult for them. If they're actually going through a thought process to make their votes then they just have to transcribe those thoughts.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Jan 13 2006 09:55 AM |
|
No, you're not required to vote for ten. It's just the maximum. There's no minimum. (This is reminding me of our Schaefer POTG debates.) You can even submit a blank ballot if you think no one's deserving.
|
| Edgy DC Jan 13 2006 10:06 AM |
|
|
I don't think I did that. What I did do is agree that voting for Jefferies is very very unrelated to not voting for Gossage.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Jan 13 2006 10:09 AM |
|
I would suspect that the guys who voted for Jefferies probably also voted for Gossage. I'd bet that the Jefferies votes came from writers who every year vote for the ten best. I know, from reading various "how I voted" columns over the years, that some writers do routinely vote for ten players.
|
| Elster88 Jan 13 2006 10:10 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 13 2006 10:20 AM |
||
|
Oh. My apologies. I agree with that, too.
|
| Frayed Knot Jan 13 2006 10:20 AM |
|
Writers will occasionally do that just to throw a bone to a player they were buddies with; kind of a way to give him the right to say he received a vote even though it means nothing in the long run.
|
